F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post27 May 2019, 09:46

ricnunes wrote:Are you aware that countries sometimes or often (depending on the country) decide buy and 'Y' over 'X' military equipment which includes fighter aircraft not based on pure and sheer capabilities but based on:



Of course, that's why I said "cheap". It seems we are in agreement on this particular aspect :wink:
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post27 May 2019, 10:07

knowan wrote:[
You're also talking about relying exclusively on passive sensors. What happens when the Gripen is facing aircraft that are passive too, but being guided to the Gripen by long-range ground based radar or AWACS?

The answer: a dead Gripen.


Of course Gripen E (like all 4 and 4.5 gen a/c) will have much lower survivability than F-35 in such a demanding environment.

Nevertheless I do believe Rafale, Gripen E, (and F-21?), will have higher survivability compared to the previous "generation" (Mirage 2000, Gripen C and F-16 block 50/52) mainly due to the following reasons:

* AESA radar
* Built-in IRST sensors
* sensor fusion (limited compared to F-35 sensor fusion but still massive improvement compared to previous "generation")
* massively improved, built-in EWS capabilities, using phased-array or (preferrably) (GaN) AESA transmitters
* Automated response to missile attacks
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post27 May 2019, 10:30

magitsu wrote: The two-seater F is still only a vision. Apparently they expect to lengthen the frame by 65 centimeters etc. (and that's how you get EW Gripen - lol) but won't admit that these kind of changes might require a significant amount of extra testing on top of E's already challenging schedule.


How do you know that the Gripen E test schedule is "challenging"? Any evidence to this? Also F is not supposed to be ready quite yet, they have said it will require some development work, and testing of course.
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 399
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post27 May 2019, 12:58

loke wrote:How do you know that the Gripen E test schedule is "challenging"? Any evidence to this? Also F is not supposed to be ready quite yet, they have said it will require some development work, and testing of course.

It's very challenging related to Swiss and Finnish procurement schedule. Especially the Finnish one because Saab told their offer included F, which will be flying its first test flight one-two years after the decision at the earliest.

Stark contrast to other candidates when they consider whether the offering is proven.
Whether it matters and how much is another thing. For example the Swiss politicians were already willing to buy Gripen five years ago. Finns on the other hand have generally preferred proven or at least widely used solutions.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post27 May 2019, 13:29

magitsu wrote:
loke wrote:How do you know that the Gripen E test schedule is "challenging"? Any evidence to this? Also F is not supposed to be ready quite yet, they have said it will require some development work, and testing of course.

It's very challenging related to Swiss and Finnish procurement schedule. Especially the Finnish one because Saab told their offer included F, which will be flying its first test flight one-two years after the decision at the earliest.

Stark contrast to other candidates when they consider whether the offering is proven.
Whether it matters and how much is another thing. For example the Swiss politicians were already willing to buy Gripen five years ago. Finns on the other hand have generally preferred proven or at least widely used solutions.

I agree that the "F" schedule can be challenging for Finland (but does not matter since F-35 will win in Finland -- if not, it will be the SH/Growler.)

Did Switzerland also ask for F? I thought they were looking for E only. E testing seems to be going fine at the moment:
LINKÖPING, Sweden — Flight-testing of Saab’s Gripen E combat aircraft is moving faster than anticipated, according to Eddy de la Motte, vice president and head of the Gripen E/F business unit at Swedish manufacturer Saab.
De la Motte told a media briefing that tests to fire MBDA’s Meteor missile had been carried out by test aircraft 39-8 and 39-9 in northern Sweden. “We’d planned two weeks for the testing and were able to get everything done in one,”


https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... or-claims/

Of course testing is not completed yet and things can still crop up, but I have not seen any indications of delays since the program was re-baselined in 2014 (or was it 2015?).

According to the plans Brazil will get their first Gripen E in 2021.

When will Switzerland introduce their first new jet? (which most likely will also be F-35, unless politics is interfering, which seems unlikely since they have decided to have the referendum before they choose which a/c to go for).
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post27 May 2019, 15:58

Regarding EWS: In the Swiss 2009 eval Gripen scored just below 8; Rafale just above 8, and Typhoon below 7. Since the "minimum requirement" was 6, then it seems that score just below 8 is pretty good. The Gripen EWS was also mentioned among the strong points of Gripen already in the 2008 assessment (of Gripen C).
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22957
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 May 2019, 16:24

Saab Advances with Gripen E Test Program
27 May 2019 Beth Stevenson

" [Best read it at source]"

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... st-program
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2017
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 May 2019, 21:07

loke wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Are you aware that countries sometimes or often (depending on the country) decide buy and 'Y' over 'X' military equipment which includes fighter aircraft not based on pure and sheer capabilities but based on:



Of course, that's why I said "cheap". It seems we are in agreement on this particular aspect :wink:


But on what aspect, the Gripen or Pink Floyd? :mrgreen:

(just joking... :mrgreen: )
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2017
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 May 2019, 21:21

XanderCrews wrote:Yes this is kind of how the "moving goal post" game goes.


Yes, indeed.
I believe that optimist nailed this perfectly: trying to retort those "moving goal posts" feels like playing whack-a-mole! :wink:


XanderCrews wrote:thats why i get a kick out of "Best Fighter For Canada's" kool aide crew. You really are seriously talking about Canada going to a force posture like Brazil or Botswana? Really? like Canada didn't build and use CF-5s for decades and used them right alongside the CF-18s and "somehow" chose to get rid of CF-5s, and not CF-18s? Any hints there? and "clues"? to decipher? Its that lightning bolt moment I mention.

"hey I was right in the middle of comparing a Cf-18's and F-35s range to a Gripen E over the great white north to the thousandth decimal place, when all of the sudden I realized that one is a "light fighter" with worse T/W than an F-16 and can't carry a CF-18 loadout anywhere and the F-35 carries double the internal fuel of a CF-18, with no additional stores, pylons, EFTs, or external drag whatsever!"


You're spot on with your assessment regarding the CF-5, CF-18 and Gripen.
People (in Canada, this case) forget how much a failure was the CF-5. This aircraft was only purchased by Canada because at that time NATO decided to create a sort of an "Air Task Force" to protect Norway and at that time Daddy Trudeau (which was the PM at that time) decided to contribute right away without even (apparently) having the knowledge (or consulting with the Armed Forces) that Canada didn't have any fighter/combat aircraft resources to spend/divert to Norway (from either Canada and West Germany) so he decided to purchase the cheapest thing possible just to "honor" this commitment of his. The cheapest thing available at that time was the F-5 (known in Canada as the CF-5). So that was it!
Operationally the CF-5 was a failure and in case of war it would only be used as a Close Air Support (CAS) aircraft. A Canadian pseudo-A10 if you will... And in peacetime is was apparently only used for training.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 970
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post27 May 2019, 22:59

loke wrote:
knowan wrote:[
You're also talking about relying exclusively on passive sensors. What happens when the Gripen is facing aircraft that are passive too, but being guided to the Gripen by long-range ground based radar or AWACS?

The answer: a dead Gripen.


Of course Gripen E (like all 4 and 4.5 gen a/c) will have much lower survivability than F-35 in such a demanding environment.

Nevertheless I do believe Rafale, Gripen E, (and F-21?), will have higher survivability compared to the previous "generation" (Mirage 2000, Gripen C and F-16 block 50/52) mainly due to the following reasons:

* AESA radar
* Built-in IRST sensors
* sensor fusion (limited compared to F-35 sensor fusion but still massive improvement compared to previous "generation")
* massively improved, built-in EWS capabilities, using phased-array or (preferrably) (GaN) AESA transmitters
* Automated response to missile attacks

Oh come on, It's debatable whether the Gripen is more capable than the current configuration of the f-16 and it's system. It is even less debatable, with the Service Life Extension programme within the fleet. I think the current export FMS build is also very capable.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... -dna-51577
The Air Force Will Transform Its F-16s (Thanks to Some F-35 'DNA')
The Air Force is giving its 1970s-era F-16 fighter F-35 technology as part of a massive fleet-wide overhaul intended to improve targeting, attack precision and computer systems -- and extend the fighter’s combat life all the way into the 2040s.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2216
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post28 May 2019, 01:02

I have little doubt Gripen E will have an advantage over Venezuelan Flankers the day they become operational.
Offline

alphaxraylima

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2018, 16:42

Unread post28 May 2019, 14:07

eloise wrote: Detection and getting targeting solution aren't the same though. https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... olocation/


Which is why I wrote locate and not detect. Even the Gripen A had such a capability as "the PS-05/A can operate in passive mode, as a sensitive receiver with high directional accuracy (due to its large antenna). Two PS-05/As can exchange information by datalink and locate the target by triangulation" https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gripen%2 ... a085251568

What the Gripen E brings to the table, other than new and improved receivers and avionics, is a beamed data link (similar to the F-35 MADL) which greatly limits the primary disadvantage of what the article you linked refer to as multi-ship triangulation, not being able to stay silent. Because even though the friendly aircraft still have to transmit to perform multi-ship triangulation, now they can do so in a way that is very difficult for the enemy to detect.
Offline

alphaxraylima

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2018, 16:42

Unread post28 May 2019, 18:19

knowan wrote: Even giving all that a pass and just assuming it is true, it is still pretty much useless when considering a sortie against targets protected by a modern air defense network, because the aircraft still has to get close enough to the targets to release weapons.
Sure aircraft like the Gripen can carry stand-off weapons and even long range cruise missiles, but no nation can rely exclusively on those for warfare; getting the aircraft close enough to launch cheaper and more numerous munitions is required.


You're also talking about relying exclusively on passive sensors. What happens when the Gripen is facing aircraft that are passive too, but being guided to the Gripen by long-range ground based radar or AWACS?

The answer: a dead Gripen.


Quite a lot here, I would argue that, going what Saab has published regarding the Echo, it would be far from useless against an A2/AD threat. It's currently the only fighter flying with an internal GaN EW suite and it pretty much always carries, at least, two IRIS-T missiles which are said to be able to kinematically engage SAMs post launch. In addition Saab is set to begin flight trails of an external Low-Band Jammer Pod later this year which also, like the in development American Next Generation Jammer for the Growler, uses GaN.

When it comes to weapons things like the British Spear III missile (similar in size and weight to the American GBU-39 or GBU-53) with its range of 75 nautical miles will give pretty much any fighter the ability to put a plethora of munitions on a well defended target while remaining below the radar horizon and with its two way data link it could be guided from an asset other than the launch aircraft, while all friendly aircraft remains safe, outside the engagement envelope of the A2/AD threat.

When it comes to dealing with AWACS, if EW isn't enough, the possible threat of a very long range Meteor missile coming your way might force the aircraft to remain to far from the area of operations to be effective.

Regarding the threat of ground based radars on a OCA mission, what I mentioned above still applies. Either remaining below the radar horizon or making sure than one or two of your aircraft are configured accordingly, with low band jammer pods. And with ground based radars not being as size limited as the ones in fighter aircraft such radars might create difficulties for stealthy fighter aircraft as well. For example, the AN/TPY-2, part of the THAAD system, can, according to Raytheon, "track a home run from a ball park from several hundred miles away". Applying the radar equation (and assuming a baseball is a sphere with an RCS of about 0.02 m^2) that would bring the tracking range of a target with an RCS of -30 dbsm to about 230 km, and that is against an X-band radar, using a radar with alonger wave length should increase the detection range even further. At that point you might say that a non stealthy aircraft will be detected sooner and while that is indeed true the fighter needs to be in the LoS of the radar in the first place for that to happen and at such a range the radar horizon is at about 10000 ft.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5902
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post28 May 2019, 20:16

alphaxraylima wrote:
knowan wrote: Even giving all that a pass and just assuming it is true, it is still pretty much useless when considering a sortie against targets protected by a modern air defense network, because the aircraft still has to get close enough to the targets to release weapons.
Sure aircraft like the Gripen can carry stand-off weapons and even long range cruise missiles, but no nation can rely exclusively on those for warfare; getting the aircraft close enough to launch cheaper and more numerous munitions is required.


You're also talking about relying exclusively on passive sensors. What happens when the Gripen is facing aircraft that are passive too, but being guided to the Gripen by long-range ground based radar or AWACS?

The answer: a dead Gripen.


Quite a lot here, I would argue that, going what Saab has published regarding the Echo, it would be far from useless against an A2/AD threat. It's currently the only fighter flying with an internal GaN EW suite and it pretty much always carries, at least, two IRIS-T missiles which are said to be able to kinematically engage SAMs post launch. In addition Saab is set to begin flight trails of an external Low-Band Jammer Pod later this year which also, like the in development American Next Generation Jammer for the Growler, uses GaN.

When it comes to weapons things like the British Spear III missile (similar in size and weight to the American GBU-39 or GBU-53) with its range of 75 nautical miles will give pretty much any fighter the ability to put a plethora of munitions on a well defended target while remaining below the radar horizon and with its two way data link it could be guided from an asset other than the launch aircraft, while all friendly aircraft remains safe, outside the engagement envelope of the A2/AD threat.

When it comes to dealing with AWACS, if EW isn't enough, the possible threat of a very long range Meteor missile coming your way might force the aircraft to remain to far from the area of operations to be effective.

Regarding the threat of ground based radars on a OCA mission, what I mentioned above still applies. Either remaining below the radar horizon or making sure than one or two of your aircraft are configured accordingly, with low band jammer pods. And with ground based radars not being as size limited as the ones in fighter aircraft such radars might create difficulties for stealthy fighter aircraft as well. For example, the AN/TPY-2, part of the THAAD system, can, according to Raytheon, "track a home run from a ball park from several hundred miles away". Applying the radar equation (and assuming a baseball is a sphere with an RCS of about 0.02 m^2) that would bring the tracking range of a target with an RCS of -30 dbsm to about 230 km, and that is against an X-band radar, using a radar with alonger wave length should increase the detection range even further. At that point you might say that a non stealthy aircraft will be detected sooner and while that is indeed true the fighter needs to be in the LoS of the radar in the first place for that to happen and at such a range the radar horizon is at about 10000 ft.



Need to just stop wasting time here, and throw GaN all over and in an F-16 armed with the Euro missiles and we can watch all the troubles just melt away. Do we even need GaN-pod Growlers after that? Or SEAD Vipers for that matter?

In conclusion, GaN

Now of course we've had Naval Aviators flat out say that a Growler won't cut it in the A2AD environment and F-35 will get the nod, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the Growler has a more sophisticated and powerful jamming capability than the Gripen E...

Image
Last edited by XanderCrews on 28 May 2019, 20:43, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5902
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post28 May 2019, 20:40

madrat wrote:I have little doubt Gripen E will have an advantage over Venezuelan Flankers the day they become operational.



which one is "they" :mrgreen:


loke wrote:
I have not seen any indications of delays since the program was re-baselined in 2014 (or was it 2015?).



I would love to have this explained as I'm told this program is a model and hasn't suffered delays yet was rebaselined, and hasn't suffered delays since that.

:roll:

loke wrote:
magitsu wrote: The two-seater F is still only a vision. Apparently they expect to lengthen the frame by 65 centimeters etc. (and that's how you get EW Gripen - lol) but won't admit that these kind of changes might require a significant amount of extra testing on top of E's already challenging schedule.


How do you know that the Gripen E test schedule is "challenging"? Any evidence to this? Also F is not supposed to be ready quite yet, they have said it will require some development work, and testing of course.


Saab’s CEO Håkan Buskhe told journalists on Feb. 16 that the aerospace firm is on schedule to deliver the first two Gripen E fighters to the Brazilian and Swedish Air Forces next year.

Buskhe revealed that the test data from the current prototype is better than predicted and a second aircraft will be ready by end of the year.

“Test and evaluation of the first [prototype] aircraft is going extremely well. We are getting better-standard data than we had anticipated,” Buskhe said to Flight Global.

“It’s always challenging to have this type of programme, but if it’s not challenging then it probably will not be a good product at the end,” he notes, while describing development work as progressing “fairly well”.

They've been working on it for over a decade Loki, I think it mightwell be challenging. its a very tight schedule all of the sudden for those of us observing, and its only going to get tighter. After 15 years of talk to start delivering while they test and build simultaneously while avoiding delay and additional cost overruns.

Why is it heresy to declare such amount of tasks and time left to complete them as "challenging"??
Last edited by XanderCrews on 28 May 2019, 21:00, edited 2 times in total.
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests